摘要
21世纪B. Kumaravadivelu的“后方法教学法”理论倡导教师才是教学理论的创建者，教师在教学中应根据实际情况发现适合其特定情境的方法。多年来，中国英语教师为提高教学质量，不断尝试各种新的教学思想和方法。然而，一些突出的问题仍未得到彻底解决，如中国学生在英语应用方面的“高分低能”表现及课堂中的被动性表现，等。这说明中国英语教学需要更加微观化的研究和更加具有可操作性的教学模式。在以往大学英语教学的改革中，教师们在中国现实下遇到了众多问题，英语课堂沟通式互动教学的开展阻力重重，就是其中之一。面对问题，本文认为我们不能空吁且固执前行，而要顺应进而改变。
课堂沟通式互动亦即M.H. Long提出的人际交往中具有意义的互动。它是交际双方为达到彼此理解通过调整语言形式、会话结构、信息内容而进行的交流。在课堂中开展师生间、生生间的具有意义的互动对语言学习具有非凡意义。从Krashen的“可理解性输入”到Swain的“可理解性输出”，再到Vygotsky的“最近发展区”都证明了课堂沟通式互动能够促进学生语言习得。基于此，在大量以“二语”习得为研究视角的现状下，本文从课堂组织实施的角度，以J. Snyder, F. Bolin, and K. Zumwalt的课程实施理论为支撑，从“忠诚”（fidelity）、“相互顺应”（mutual adaptation）和“创生”（enactment）三个方面探讨中国英语教师沟通式互动实施的现状、顺应过程和可行性的创生模式。为此提出了三个研究问题：1）英语教师是如何认知并开展课堂沟通式互动的？2）哪些因素促进或阻碍英语课堂沟通式互动的开展？3）中国国情下英语教师应如何顺应现实实施沟通式互动？
通过研究，希冀建立合乎国情的互动教学模式，改善英语课堂的沉闷气氛和学生被动学习的局面。
本研究采用定量和定性的研究方法，以调查问卷、听课、访谈多种方式进行了较大规模的数据收集。研究对象包括来自郑州大学、中原工学院和西亚斯国际学院的656名学生和40名教师。通过对所收集数据的定量和定性分析，发现目前中国英语课堂依然存在着班级人数太多、课时不足、考试压力大等客观问题；由于受传统文化诸如尊师教育、重面子心理的影响，学生自身也存在着不主动的问题，表现为习惯老师点名回答问题、过于依赖老师等。种种现实困难让大部分教师对开展互动教学感到很无奈，迫使他们退却或放弃互动教学，转向传统的教学方法。目前，课文语法讲解、教师长时间占据话语权、学生表现沉闷，仍然是英语课堂的主旋律。
基于D. Allright的“课堂生命质量”观点（学生在课堂中的生命体现不仅仅是指其肉体的存在，还体现在其思想、感情和知识等应受到的尊重）以及中国国情及传统文化，本文认为应当从英语课堂师生互动的质量和微观策略方面对现有英语课堂教学模式进行改良。为此，本文引入了质量管控科学中的“戴明环”理论（即PDCA Circle：plan, do, check andact），以互动课堂的授课阶段、学习任务的组织策略以及开展时机等为依托，提出了尝试性的改良教学模式，并辅以了心理学、管理学和教学法等理据说明，以期提高师生课堂互动的有效性，促进学生语用能力的提高。最后，本研究运用改良的新模式在小范围内做了为期10周的教学实验。实验后的学生问卷调查显示该教学模式在一定程度上对英语课堂教学现状的改善具有借鉴意义。
In the twenty-first century, B. Kumaravadivelu put forward the postmethodpedagogy advocating that teachers themselves are the founders of teaching theory.They should try to discover the method that is best suited to their specific contexts.Chinese teachers of English have been actively involved in searching for the bestmethods, constantly trying new teaching ideas and techniques in order to improve thequality of English teaching in China. However, problems such as students’paradoxically high scores on English tests but poor performance in language use andtheir learning passivity have not yet been solved thoroughly. This means that the studyof English teaching needs to be explored at the micro-level and in practical operationsin order to find the most suitable and operable model for Chinese EFL classes. Overmany years of China’s college English teaching reform, teachers have encounteredmany realistic problems including heavy resistance to the implementation ofnegotiated interaction. To confront this reality, we should not merely speak emptywords and stubbornly persist with the status quo, but instead adapt to the reality andmake changes.
Negotiated interaction is the meaningful interaction between the speaker and thelistener according to M.H. Long. It is communication exchanges between both sideswho try to make each other understood through the adjustment of the language form,conversational structure, and content. Negotiated interaction between teachers andstudents and/or between student peers is significant in language learning. Krashen’stheory of Comprehensible Input, Swain’s theory of Comprehensible Output andVygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development all have proved that classroom interactioncan promote learners’ language acquisition. With the curriculum implementationtheory (fidelity, mutual adaptation and enactment) proposed by J. Snyder, F. Bolin,and K. Zumwalt as a framework, this dissertation examines the status, the adaptationprocess and a possible new model concerning negotiated interaction in collegeEnglish classes of China from the perspective of implementation with qualified classroom organization, a unique approach when compared with other studies whichare from the perspective of the second language acquisition (SLA). Hence, thefollowing research questions are addressed:
a. What are Chinese teachers’ perceptions of negotiated interaction and theirpractices in classes?
b. What factors facilitate or inhibit the classroom implementation of negotiatedinteraction?
c. How do teachers adapt to negotiated interaction in EFL classes in China?
This study uses quantitative and qualitative research methodology. Multipleinstruments (questionnaires, classroom observations, and interviews) were used tocollect data at Zhengzhou University, Sias International College and the Central ChinaInstitute of Technology.656students and40teachers from the three universities wereinvolved in the study. The collected data shows that the objective problems such aslarge class size, students’learning passivity, time constraints and examination pressurebrought difficulties to Chinese teachers of English in developing classroominteraction. Additionally, students themselves are too passive in “preferring to becalled on” and “teacher control tendency” due to the influence of Chinese traditionalculture, like “respecting teacher education” and “face matter.” All these facts make theteachers of English feel helpless and most of them who have tried interactive teachingend up resorting to traditional teaching methods. At present, the grammar teachingand teacher talk dominance are still the main practice in English classes in China.Based on D. Allwright’s idea--“the quality of classroom life”(i.e. the life ofstudents in the classroom is not only physical but also includes their respectablethoughts, feelings and knowledge) and based on Chinese traditional culture, this studysuggests that the existing teaching model be improved in interaction quality and themicroscopic strategy. A refined classroom model for better negotiated interaction inChinese-specific context is developed by introducing the famous “Deming Circle”(i.e.the PDCA circle: Plan, Do, Check and Act) into it. With the aid of rationales frompsychology, management, etc, the refined model displays the quality control on theteaching phases, the matched strategies, types of learning tasks, time allocation andteacher’s roles.
Finally, a small scale teaching experiment lasting10weeks was conducted. The results of a questionnaire survey to students show that the teaching with the refinedteaching model is informative, instructive and practical in Chinese EFL classes.
引文
Allwright, D.(2003). Exploratory practice: rethinking practitioner research inlanguage teaching. Language Teaching Research,7,113-141.
Allwright, R.(1984). The importance of interaction in classroom language learning.Applied Linguistics,5,156-171.
Berman, P.,&McLaughlin, M. W.(1976). Implementation of educational innovation.Educational Forum,40,345-370.
Bitchener, J.(2004). The relationship between the negotiation of meaning andlanguage learning: Alongitudinal study. Language Awareness,2(13),81-95.
Braidi, S. M.(1995). Reconsidering the role of interaction and input in secondlanguage acquisition. Language Learning,1(45),141-175.
Brinton, D. M., Snow, M.A.&Wesche, M.B.(1989). Content-based second languageinstruction. New York: Newbury House Publishers.
Brock, C. A.(1986). The effect of referential question on ESL classroom discourse.TESOL Quarterly,1(20),47-59.
Brown, H. D.(1997). English language teaching in the “Postmethod” Era: Towardbetter diagnosis, treatment and assessment. PASAA,27.
Brown, H. D.(2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive Approach to LanguagePedagogy. China: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Cao, Y.&Philp, J.(2006). Interactional context and willingness to communicate: Acomparison of behavior in whole class group and dyadic interaction. System,34,480-493.
Chaudron, C.(1988). Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching andLearning. Cambridge: CUP.
Cohen, R.(2000). Meaning, interpretation and international negotiation. GlobalSociety,3(14),317-335.
Cullen, R.(1998). Teacher talk and the classroom context. ELT Journal,3(52),113-179
Dalton-Puffer, C.(2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning(CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Davies, A.(2000). Making Classroom Assessment Work. Merville, British Columbia,Canada: Connections Publishing.
Dornyei, Z.(2001). Motivational Strategies in the English Classroom. Cambridge:CUP.
Doughty, C&Pica. T.(1986).“Information gap” tasks: Do they facilitate secondlanguage acquisition. TESOL Quarterly,2(20),305-325.
Ellis, R.(1990). Instructed second language acquisition. Oxford: BlackwellPublishers.
Ellis, R.(1984). Classroom Second Language Development: A study of classroominteraction and language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Ellis, R.(1999). Learning a Second Language through Interaction. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins Publishing House.
Ellis，R., Tanaka, Y.,&Yamazaki, A.(1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension,and the acquisition of L2word meaning. Language Learning,44,449-491.
Farahian, M.&Rezaee, M.(2012). A Case Study of an EFL Teacher's Type ofQuestions: An Investigation into Classroom Interaction. Procedia-Social andBehavioral Sciences,47,161-167.
Finocchiaro, M.(1971). Myth and reality in TESOL: A plea for a broader view.TESOL Quarterly,5,3-17.
Flanders, Ned E.(1970). Analyzing Teaching Behaviour. Addison-Wesley PublishingCompany
Foster, P.(1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. AppliedLinguistics,1(19),1-23.
Frederiksen, J. R.&Collins, A.(1989). A systems approach to educational testing.Educational Researcher,9(18),27-32.
Fullan, M.&Pomfret, A.(1977). Research on curriculum and instructionimplementation. Review of Education Research,47,334-397.
Fullan, M.(1982). The Meaning of Eduactional Change. New York: Teachers CollegePress.
Gall, M. D.(1970). The use of questions in teaching. Educational Research Review,5(40),707-721.
Gass, S. M.,&Varonis, E. M.(1994). Input, interaction and second languageproduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,3(16),283-302.
Gass, S.&Selinger, L.(2001). Second Language Acquisition: An introductory course(2ndedit.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.
Gil, G.(2002). Two complementary modes of foreign language classroom interaction.ELT Journal,3(56),273-279.
Hall, R. M.,&Sandier, B. R.(1982). The classroom climate: A chilly one forwomen? Washington, D.C: Association of American Colleges.(Report of theProject on the Status and Education of Women)
Harmer, J.(1983). The Practice of English Language Teaching. NY: LongmanHouse.
Harumi, S.(2011) Classroom silence: Voices from Japanese EFL learners. ELTJournal,3(65),260-269.
Hatch, E.(1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition, In E. Hatch(ed.), Second Language Acquisition: A book of readings. Rowley/MA: NewburyHouse.
Hayes, D.(1997). Helping teachers to cope with the large classes. ELT Journal,2(51),106-116.
Iwashita, N.(2001). The effect of learner proficiency on corrective feedback andmodified output in nonnative-nonnative interaction. System29,267-287.
Kim, Y.(2009). The effect of task complexity on learner-learner interaction. System,37,254-268.
Kimpston, R. D.(1985). Curriculum fidelity and the implementation tasks employedby teachers: Aresearch study. Curriculum Studies,2(17),185-195.
Kramsch, C. J.(1983). Interaction in the classroom: Learning to negotiate roles andmeanings. Teaching German,2(16),175-190.
Krashen, S.(1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning.Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S.(1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. London:Longman.
Kumaravadivelu, B.(1994). The postmethod condition: Emerging strategies forsecond/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly,1(28),27-48.
Kumaravadivelu, B.(2006). Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOLQuarterly,1(40),59-81.
Larsen-freeman, D.(1997). Chaos/complexity science and second languageacquisition. Applied Linguistics,2(18),141-165.
Lee,Y. A.&Takahashi, A.(2011). Lesson plans and the contingency of classroominteractions. Human Study,34,209-227.
Leung, C.(2005). Classroom teacher assessment of second language development:Construct as practice. In E. Hinkel (ed.) Handbook of Research inSecondLlanguage Learning and Teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lin P.&Block D.(2011). English as a “global language” in China: An investigationinto learners’and teachers’language beliefs. System,3(39),391-402
Long, M. H.(1983a). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and thenegotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics,2(4),126-141.
Long, M. H.(1983b). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-nativespeakers Studies in Second Language Acquisition,2(5),177-193.
Long, M.H.(1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition.In Ritchie, W&T. Bhatia (ed.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition.San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Lu, Y. F.(2011). A tentative study of how to improve the effectiveness of classroominteraction. Studies in Literature and Language,2(3),84-91.
Lyster, R.(2002). Negotiation in immersion teacher-student interaction. EducationalResearch,37,237-253.
Lyster, R&Mori, H.(2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance.Studies in Second Language Acquisition,28,269-300.
Lyster, R&Ranta, L.(2013). The case for variety in corrective feedback research.Studies in Second Language Acquisition,35,167-184.
Lyster, R&Saito, K.(2010). Interactional feedback as instructional input: Asynthesisof classroom SLA research. Language, Interaction and Acquisition,http//:www.f.waseda.jp/kazuya.saito/LandSinLIA.pdf.
Mackey, W. F.(1965). Language Teaching Analysis. London: Longman.
Mackey, A.(1999). Input, interaction and second Language development. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition,4(21),557-587.
Marsh, C. J.,&Willis, G.(2007). Curriculum Implementation. New Jersey: PearsonEducation, Inc.
McDonough, K&Mackey, A.(2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primedproduction, and linguistic development. Language Learning,4(56),693-720.
McLaughlin, M. W.(2004). Implementation as mutual adaptation: Change inclassroom organization. In D. J Flinders&S. J. Thornton,(ed.), The CurriculumStudies Readers. New York: Routledge Falmer.
McMillan, J. H.(2007). Classroom Assessment: Principles and Practice for EffectiveStandardized-based Instruction (4thedition). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn&Bacon.
Morris, P.,&Scott, I.(2003). Educational reform and policy implementation in HongKong. Journal of Education Policy,1(18).71-84.
Nobuyoshi, J.&Ellis, R.(1993). Focused communication tasks and second languageacquisition. ELT Journal,47,203-210.
Nunan, D.(1991). Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teachers. NJ:Prentice Hall Inc.
O’Donnell, C. L.(2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity ofimplementation and its relationship to outcomes in K-12curriculum intervention.Research Review of Educational Research,1(78),33-84.
Pennycook, A.(1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politicsof language teaching. TESOL Quarterly,23,589-618.
Pica, T.(1992). The textual outcomes of native speaker/non-native speakernegotiation. What do they reveal about second language learning? In C. Kramsch&S. McConnel-Ginet (ed.), Text in context: Cross disciplinary perspectives onlanguage study. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Pica, T.(1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-languagelearning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning.44,493-527.
Pica, T., Young, R.&Doughty, C.(1987). The impact of interaction oncomprehension. TESOL Quarterly,21,737-757.
Prabhu, N. S.(1990). There is no best method–Why? TESOL Quarterly,2(24),161-76.
Qiang, N.&Wolff, M.(2009). China EFL: Programming human robotsHumanising Language Teaching, http//:www.hltmag.co.uk/feb09/mart01.htm.
Qiang, N.&Wolff, M.(2010). China EFL: Mute English. CET---the Bane of EFLAcquisition in China. Humanizing Language Teaching,http//:www.hltmag.co.uk/feb10/mart03.htm.
Richards, J. C. et al.(2000).(trans.管燕红). Longman Dictionary of Teaching and AppliedLinguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Richards, J.C. and Rodgers, T.S.(2001) Approaches and Methods in LanguageTeaching (2nded.). Cambridge: CUP
Seedhouse, P.(1994). Linking pedagogical purposes to linguistic patterns ofinteraction: The analysis of communication in the language classroom.International Review of Applied Linguistics,32,303.
Seliger, H.(1983). Learner interaction in the classroom and its effects on languageacquisition. In Seliger and Long (ed), Classroom-Oriented Research in SecondLanguage Acquisition. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
Sharwood S. M.(1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition,2(15),165-179.
Shepard, L. A.(2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. EducationalResearcher,29(7),4–14.
Shutler. P.&Crawford. L.E.D.(1998). The challenge of ISO9000certification inhigher education. Quality Assurance in Education,3(6),152-161.
Siemon, A.(2010). Learning English in China: Is communicative language teachinga reality? Australian Journal of Language and Literacy,2(33),39-42.
Sinclair, J. M.&Coulthard, M.(1975). Towards a Discourse Analysis. London: OUP.
Snyder, J., Bolin, F.,&Zumwalt, K.(1992). Curriculum implementation. In P. W.Jackson (ed.), Handbook of Research of Curriculum: A Project of the AmericanEducational Research Association. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Stern, H.H.(1983). Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Britain: OUP.
Swain, M.(1985). Communication competence: Some roles of comprehensible inputand comprehensible output in its development In S. Gass&C. Madden (ed.).Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley Mass: Newbury House.
Swain, M.(1988). Manipulating and complementing content teaching to maximizesecond language learning. TESL Canada Journal,6(1),68-83
Swain, M.(1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough.The Canadian Modern Language Review,50,158-164.
Swain, M.(1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook&B. Seidlhofer (ed.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies inhonor of H. G. Widdowson. Oxford: CUP.
Swain, M.(1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty&J.Williams (ed.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition.Cambridge: CUP.
Swain, M.,&Lapkin, S.(1995). Problems in output and the cognitive Processes theygenerate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics,16,371-391.
Tartwijk, J. F. van&Hammerness, K.(2011). The neglected role of classroommanagement in teacher education. Teaching Education,2(22),109-112.
Tsui, A. B. M.(1985). Analyzing input and interaction in second language classrooms.RELC Journal,16(1),8-32.
van Lier, L.(1988). The Classroom and the Language Learner. London: Longman.
Velandia, R.(2008). The role of warming up activities in adolescent students’involvement during the English class. Profile Issue in Teachers’ ProfessionalDevelopment,10,9-26.
Vygotsky, L.(1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge/MA: MIT Press.
Wang, Q. Y.&Carolyn D. C.(2010). Classroom interaction and language output.Social Science,2(3),175-186.
Wang, H.&Chen, L.Y.(2009). Factors affecting teachers’curriculum implementation.The Linguistics Journal,4,135-166.
Wu, B. H.(1998). Towards an understanding of the dynamic process of L2classroominteraction. System,26,525-540.
Young, R.(1984). Negotiation of outcome and negotiation of meaning in ESLclassroom. TESOL Quarterly,3(18),525-526.
Yu, R. M.(2008). Interaction in EFL classes. Asian Social Science,4(4),48-50.
陈坚林.(2000).现代英语教学组织与管理.上海：上海外语教育出版社.
陈晓湘，张薇.(2008).修正后输出对目标语发展的作用.外语教学与研究(外国语文),4,279-286.
程晓樵，吴康宁,吴永军.(1994).课堂教学中的社会互动.教育评论,2,37-41.
邓仁宏.（1996）.大学英语教学中交际法运用的局限性.吉首大学学报(社会科学版),3,50-52.
邓秀娥，郑新民.(2008).关于大学英语课堂小组活动有效性的研究.外语电化教学,122,41-46.
冯建军.(2004).生命与教育.北京：教育科学出版社.
高圣兵.(1994).交际法施教过程中的若干问题.外语教学与研究,3,55-58.
顾姗姗，王同顺.(2008).负反馈、注意机制及修正后输出对英语问句习得发展的影响.外语教学与研究(外国语文).4(40),270-278.
亢晓梅.(2001).师生课堂互动行为类型理论比较研究.比较教育研究,4,42-46.
黄小莲.(2011).课程实施研究谱系（1970-2010）.教育发展研究,8,31-37.
李晶洁.(2002).教师作为辅助者在外语课堂语言互动中的作用.外语界，1,67-71
李秀英,王义静.(2000).“互动”英语教学模式.外语与外语教学,12,22-24.
李悦娥，范宏雅.(2002). Discourse Analysis.上海：上海外语教育出版社.
陆昌兴.(2009).探索基于ISO9001质量管理体系“PDCA模式”下的大学英语教学标准化模式.经济研究导刊,16,234-235.
马冬梅.（2004）影响互动性交际中意义磋商的主要因素---二语习得研究.外语与外语教学,7,32-36.
马晓梅,徐亚丽,史焱.(1999).大学英语教学观念与教学方法现状调查分析.西安外国语学院学报,3,71-74.
束定芳,庄智象.(2008).现代外语教学.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
孙久荣,马玉君.（2003）. ISO9000质量体系中的过程方法与大学英语教学.四川外语学院学报,6（19），153-155.
王家瑾.（1997）.从教与学的互动看优化教学的设计与实践.教育研究,1,51-55.
王丽萍.(2004).外语教学如何进入交际互动课堂.外语与外语教学，10，22-25.
王宇.(2005).影响外语课堂言语互动的隐性因素--面子.外语学刊,6,76-78.
吴康宁.(1997).课堂教学的社会学研究.教育研究,2,64-71.
吴康宁.(1998).教育社会学.北京：人民教育出版社.
徐飞.(2005).国内外课堂互动研究状况述评.国外外语教学,2,55-63.
徐锦芬,曹忠凯.(2010).国内外外语/二语课堂互动研究.外语界,3,51-59.
杨存友,陈达.(2009).英语思维能力的培养:互动理念下的语句生成能力观.西华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),3(28),113-116.
杨党玲，李民权.(2004).对输入理论的探讨—输入、互动与二语习得之关系.外语界,1,69-73.
杨红.(2011).输入方式、修正后输出与二语习得.外国语文,5(27),50-53.
余文森.(2001).试析传统课堂教学的特征及弊端.教育研究,5,50-52.
张华.(2000).课程与教学论.上海：上海教育出版社.
周星,周韵.(2002).大学英语课堂教师话语的调查与分析.外语教学与研究，1(34),59-66.
赵飞，邹为诚.(2009).互动假说的理论建构.外语教学理论与实践,2,78-87.
郑树棠(主编).(2008).新视野大学英语1（读写教程）(第二版).北京：外语教学与研究出版社.